Are You Scared/Worried About Coronavirus?

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'm pretty worried just because we know so little about the virus (because it's new), nobody's got any immunities to it (because it's new), and there's no vaccine out yet (because it's new). And it's very very contagious and it's spreading rapidly, it's pretty hard not to be concerned about it.

I don't think I'll die or anything (although I did smoke a lot of cigarettes over the last 10 years, so my lungs aren't as healthy as someone who's never smoked or quit smoking well before I did) -  but I am concerned about the evidence that it might be like SARS where you might be looking at permanent damage done to your lungs if you get the disease.

I am more worried for my parents, uncles and aunts, and grandparents - the people that are in more dangerous age ranges to contract the virus, where the chance of death seems to exponentially raise. Especially for my two grandmothers (my last two grandparents), especially as one's in a country where the outbreak has been particularly devastating and you can't really trust how the government will respond to stop the spread of the virus.

[Mel81x+]

37 minutes ago, nudge said:

@Mel81x found those papers about the efficacy of remdesivir against coronaviruses:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13940-6 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5567817/

After reading all that I am surprised more places aren't pushing Chloroquine before Remdesivir as a blanket option for broad-spectrum treatment (maybe they are and im just reading the wrong news outlets). Also, after reading that I feel like this thing is far more dangerous than its being made out to be. It's got the best of its family as part of being in the alpha/beta type system. The good news is that it can be suppressed according to non-human primate testing but we just have to wait and see what the news in April is now. 

Thanks for that. I did some searches myself and read a bit but that second article in particular talking about its similarities to betacoronavirus and how they are treating it similar to MERS and SARS is a good read. 

[nudge]

9 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

After reading all that I am surprised more places aren't pushing Chloroquine before Remdesivir as a blanket option for broad-spectrum treatment (maybe they are and im just reading the wrong news outlets). Also, after reading that I feel like this thing is far more dangerous than its being made out to be. It's got the best of its family as part of being in the alpha/beta type system. The good news is that it can be suppressed according to non-human primate testing but we just have to wait and see what the news in April is now. 

Thanks for that. I did some searches myself and read a bit but that second article in particular talking about its similarities to betacoronavirus and how they are treating it similar to MERS and SARS is a good read. 

Might have something to do with it being cheap; no much profit in that  But in all seriousness, numerous clinical trials for chloroquine are also underway so it's definitely being considered as one of the options. This is a nice overview of what's in the pipeline: https://www.genengnews.com/a-lists/how-to-conquer-coronavirus-top-35-treatments-in-development/

[Mpache]

My main worry now is the scaremongers. Saying things like "40% of the population will be affected" while possibly true doesn't help matters. Looking at the deaths in China compared to recoveries though makes me slightly less worried.

[RandoEFC+]

29 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

My main worry now is the scaremongers. Saying things like "40% of the population will be affected" while possibly true doesn't help matters. Looking at the deaths in China compared to recoveries though makes me slightly less worried.

I'm more worried that people are still calling professional medical advice and factual statements "scare-mongering" this far into the outbreak.

[Mpache]

21 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm more worried that people are still calling professional medical advice and factual statements "scare-mongering" this far into the outbreak.

I’m talking about the media. The reason I mention the WHO is because I think everyone needs to collaborate to not reach the worst case scenario that is being predicted.

[Stan]

11 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

I’m talking about the media. The reason I mention the WHO is because I think everyone needs to collaborate to not reach the worst case scenario that is being predicted.

Do you not think that's what everyone in the world is doing?!

[Mpache]

Just now, Stan said:

Do you not think that's what everyone in the world is doing?!

Yes, but I mean saying things like “58m Germans will be infected” doesn’t exactly offer reassurances, at least not in the manner it was worded. I understand political statements and when they are needed but saying that this “estimate” will happen is just not the way to keep calm.

If I recall correctly, something similar happened during the Ebola outbreak. In the end numbers began to decrease. It’s all about collaboration.

[RandoEFC+]

16 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

I’m talking about the media. The reason I mention the WHO is because I think everyone needs to collaborate to not reach the worst case scenario that is being predicted.

I usually hate the media for their sensationalism but in this one I think they've been pretty balanced and informative to be fair. I dont know what it's been like in other countries so you may have a different experience. 

I also hear a lot of people talking about panic and scare mongering but I don't see that many people panicking apart from a few twats fighting over toilet roll that went viral.

I just think the time for scepticism has passed. If we do take this massively seriously and it doesn't turn out as bad as people thought then the worst case scenario is we go "oh maybe we did overreact". If people don't take it seriously though and it is that bad, then loads of preventable extra deaths might happen, so it's just time to be serious really.

I also think they need to share that information with us. Can you imagine the outcry when Germany have 50% of the population suffering from it and it gets outed that the government knew and didn't warn them? It would be a huge scandal. Businesses and citizens alike need to know what they could be in for.

[Dr. Gonzo]

22 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

I’m talking about the media. The reason I mention the WHO is because I think everyone needs to collaborate to not reach the worst case scenario that is being predicted.

The media has to report on what world leaders and health experts are saying about the spread of a new infectious disease that's highly contagious though.

Yes, I think world leaders - even those that don't have great relations with other world powers - need to come together and come up with a global plan for containing the virus and for providing necessary treatment. But that scary news that might be "scaremongering" needs to be reported - it's a serious situation, people need to take it seriously.

In the US, the most watched cable news network have series of their prominent news anchors telling the country for weeks that coronavirus and the common cold were the exact same thing. That it was nothing to worry about and if you got sick, you could keep working. The leader of the country was repeating the same shit. Now weeks later, they've started to take it seriously. How many fewer cases would we have had in the US had a media company actually reported about the coronavirus as if it wasn't the same thing as the common cold? It's hard to say, but I imagine more people would have taken it seriously and not gone to work if they'd felt sick.

[nudge]

2 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

If I recall correctly, something similar happened during the Ebola outbreak. In the end numbers began to decrease. It’s all about collaboration.

To be fair one of the biggest reasons why Ebola doesn't linger around for too long is because it's so deadly. A virus can't replicate and spread if the hosts die too fast; especially since it's only transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids and is only contagious when symptomatic. A widespread epidemic is very unlikely in countries with reasonable quality of healthcare.

[Mpache]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The media has to report on what world leaders and health experts are saying about the spread of a new infectious disease that's highly contagious though.

Yes, I think world leaders - even those that don't have great relations with other world powers - need to come together and come up with a global plan for containing the virus and for providing necessary treatment. But that scary news that might be "scaremongering" needs to be reported - it's a serious situation, people need to take it seriously.

In the US, the most watched cable news network have series of their prominent news anchors telling the country for weeks that coronavirus and the common cold were the exact same thing. That it was nothing to worry about and if you got sick, you could keep working. The leader of the country was repeating the same shit. Now weeks later, they've started to take it seriously. How many fewer cases would we have had in the US had a media company actually reported about the coronavirus as if it wasn't the same thing as the common cold? It's hard to say, but I imagine more people would have taken it seriously and not gone to work if they'd felt sick.

That's true. I mean I prefer that than Trump saying he has a "hunch" about this whole situation. 

Hopefully those estimates are just "worst case scenario" and we all work together to put this to an end before the problem arises.

[Tommy]

25 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

put this to an end before the problem arises.

Because a problem hasn't risen yet? Have you seen the situation in Wuhan, all of Italy...? 

[El Profesor]

2 hours ago, Inti Brian said:

Yes, but I mean saying things like “58m Germans will be infected” doesn’t exactly offer reassurances, at least not in the manner it was worded. I understand political statements and when they are needed but saying that this “estimate” will happen is just not the way to keep calm.

If I recall correctly, something similar happened during the Ebola outbreak. In the end numbers began to decrease. It’s all about collaboration.

But in the case of Germany, it was Angela Merkel herself who said there was a possibility that between 60% and 70% of the german population would contract the virus. 

Coronavirus is completely different to Ebola. It´s not nearly as virulent, but much more easily transmissible.

[Spike]

Not really, it isn't a very dangerous virus considering all things, I'd be more concerned if it had a higher mortality rate.

[Dr. Gonzo]

16 hours ago, Spike said:

Not really, it isn't a very dangerous virus considering all things, I'd be more concerned if it had a higher mortality rate.

If 40% of the population gets it and it has a 3% mortality rate that’s 93,537,584 people dead.

[Azeem]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If 40% of the population gets it and it has a 3% mortality rate that’s 93,537,584 people dead.

Logic 1 

Spike 0

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Azeem said:

Logic 1 

Spike 0

I wasn’t trying to like point score at all; I was just pointing out that the low mortality rate can still mean a shitload of people dying with how contagious it is.

[Mpache]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If 40% of the population gets it and it has a 3% mortality rate that’s 93,537,584 people dead.

Now this is fearmongering. The WHO already warned us about the worst case scenario, but there's no need to say how many people will die (which isn't likely anyways as the mortality rate is inflated by the amount of elderly or immune people who have died)

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

Now this is maths

FTFY

[Mpache]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

FTFY

Again, the mortality rate average is inflated because of the immune and elderly that died.

I'd be extremely shocked if this is as bad as the Spanish Flu with all the technology we have now.

[Mpache]

And don't get me wrong, I'm terrified of getting it even though I'm not in an immune state (yet) but I'm more worried about family members. My grandfather survived lung cancer amazingly and was taken by pneumonia almost 8 years later. His wife is still alive and well into her 80's, so my worry is the virus can take her. I also have a younger grandmother who is also at risk.

[nudge]

I think you need to check what the word 'immune' means 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Inti Brian said:

Again, the mortality rate average is inflated because of the immune and elderly that died.

I'd be extremely shocked if this is as bad as the Spanish Flu with all the technology we have now.

Again, this is a new virus. We don't know much about it. The first wave of Spanish Flu was much less deadly than the second wave - it's not scaremongering to urge people to be cautious.

Let's say it does spread to 40% of the population and the overall mortality rate goes down because it's "only affecting old people" (although you know what, 1.3% of people 50-59 is still a lot of people dying that aren't that old) - death isn't the only known risk of coronavirus. It's causing Fibrosis in the lungs - that's permanent (yes, it's not reversible) damage to the lungs (which are really important to people because it's how we get oxygen).

A highly contagious disease with a low mortality rate can still kill a lot of people. A highly contagious disease that can cause permanent lung damage will make serious health impacts to a lot of people.

It's not something to take lightly.

[DeadLinesman]

3 minutes ago, nudge said:

I think you need to check what the word 'immune' means